On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> Henning Thielemann wrote:
> > Translated to the tuple issue, I use only one function of type
> > field1 :: f -> t -> (f,t)
> > which is a combination of 'get' and 'set'.
> > Using this function you can implement a generic 'set', 'get', and
> > 'update'. Of course, you can argue that it is bad style to put the
> > distinct 'set' and 'get' functionalities into one function.
>> I like that style. It reminds me of the zipper pattern, of accessors (or
> something like that). ...which is more important for more complicated
> things (Maps?) (Uniplate.)
>> I don't know when I'd want to use a function polymorphic in tuple size -
> _personally_ I'd rather stick to simpler types and ... probably
> pattern-matching.
Me too. I think, I've never used other tuples than pairs and triples.
Records are much clearer and safer.